Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the API version (V3) and the underlying REST endpoint, which is mild context but says nothing about not-found behavior, error shape, or what the response contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short fragments, purpose front-loaded, zero padding. Minor deductions: the raw endpoint path is low-value for an agent, and the camelCase 'orderId' does not match the schema's 'order_id', a small risk of confusion.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents order_id as 'Stamped order id.' The description's contribution is only the provenance hint (source it from stamped_list_orders), which is a small addition beyond the schema — consistent with the baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('One order by Stamped order id') and names the sibling that supplies the id (stamped_list_orders). It does not, however, distinguish itself from stamped_lookup_order, which appears to retrieve the same object by a different key — a meaningful ambiguity for selection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical 'orderId from stamped_list_orders' gives useful provenance for the required input, implying the intended workflow (list then get). But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of when stamped_lookup_order would be preferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.